Courtney Johnston’s Post

🌟 Reflections on "How to Exhibit (Hi)Stories?" at the Stiftung Humboldt Forum im Berliner Schloss 🌟   This past Sunday, we hosted, in cooperation with the Stiftung Humboldt Forum, a talk titled "How to Exhibit (Hi)Stories?" featuring Dr. Ruth Rosenberger, a contemporary historian and digital expert at Haus der Geschichte in Bonn; Joachim Baur, a cultural scientist at the Technical University Dortmund; and Anke Schnabel, curator of the exhibition "Blown Away: The Palace of the Republic" at the Stiftung Humboldt Forum. The discussion, moderated by Nhi Le, content producer and journalist, delved into the intricate world of curating historical narratives.   Museums are often seen as the cultural memory of our society, charged with the task of preserving our cultural heritage and making history accessible. However, as the speakers pointed out, this task is far from straightforward.   Joachim Baur highlighted the complexities of curating historical narratives: "Objects as material culture or physical things play a role. But an exhibition is not just about placing objects you happen to have. It’s about creating a new constellation of things, objects, and visitors in a space, where something new and exciting happens. This includes not just three-dimensional objects but also videos, documents, and more. They need to be integrated to create an impactful experience."   Ruth Rosenberger emphasised the importance of historical knowledge: "History is interesting because it explains why our present is the way it is. It creates awareness of our achievements, as well as our shortcomings and challenges."   Anke Schnabel pointed out a key challenge when combining art, history, and storytelling: "Artworks stand on their own, but with history, it can be difficult for people because we have to be careful not to over-explain."   The event underscored the transformative power of museums in fostering dialogue and understanding through thoughtfully curated exhibits. It was a reminder of the responsibilities that come with narrating history and the impact these narratives can have on our collective memory.   For those who could not attend, the key takeaway was clear: Exhibiting histories is not just about presenting facts; it’s about crafting stories that resonate, challenge, and inspire. #DigitalHistory #HumboldtForum #eCommemoration #MuseumExhibition #CuratingCulture #MemoryCulture

What if a few well-chosen questions could transform your museum programmes? In my book, I’m sharing 10 Questioning Practices (QPs) that can enrich museum and gallery experiences with audiences of all ages, from children to teens, adults and beyond. Questioning Practices are designed to support and guide meaningful discussions and to encourage deep insights into art and objects. The 10 QPs in my book provide a comprehensive 'questioning toolkit' to enrich any guided experience. Here’s a quick look: ‣ Start with The Universal - an all-purpose, versatile QP that can be applied to all types of art and objects and works for any guided experience. Get to know The Universal first as it lays the foundations for productive museum inquiry. ‣ Then, explore nine more Questioning Practices, organised into three categories: Observation & Description, Interpretation, and Conclusion. Use them to support specific learning moves, or mix and match them for bespoke discussions that align with your goals. And on a personal note, these Questioning Practices have really changed my practice. Discover how they can do the same for you. 🎧 To find out more about what Questioning Practices are and how you can use them, listen to Episode 136 of The Art Engager podcast. And discover all 10 in my book, The Art Engager: Reimagining Guided Experiences in Museums - out now wherever you buy your books. Links are in the comments below. Thank you to Cigdem Guven for the wonderful graphics in my book exploring the 10 Questioning Practices.

Journal 47 ‘Communities and care’ is now up on our website. Over the next few months we will be spotlighting the work of our contributors and revealing the second series of our podcast.  This week we are looking at 'How do we begin to tell the story of a river?'. The article was written by by Ali Reid and Claire Pounder with Dr Paul Stewart, all from MIMA (Middlesbrough Institute of Modern Art)/ Teesside University. This article is a reflection on the creative beginnings of MIMA's exhibition 'People Powered: Stories from the River Tees', which was on display in MIMA’s galleries in central Middlesbrough from July to December 2023. The last 20 years has seen a rise in gallery engagement practice towards new methods in terms of how publics experience exhibitions, artists and museums. From an educational aesthetics point of view, this is defined by Paul Stewart as viewing a particular type of gallery engagement and curatorial activity as a facilitation of, or an engagement with the aesthetic process, with the method of learning at its heart, rather than a substitutive process of translation or engagement to an existing curatorial activity. People Powered: Stories from the River Tees at MIMA is an example of this.  Communities and care is a response to the UK Government’s ‘Levelling up’ agenda connected to a perceived lack of culture or other infrastructure. At its core, is the idea of engaging communities, most often used in the professional arts sector to refer to collective groups working together, defined by a distinguishing factor across a shared experience. Take a journey through visual art practice, engagement and participation in the era of placemaking and levelling up, simultaneously exploring the uses of the word care in relation to this work. Login with your member details to read our journals: https://buff.ly/3Var3KO. #teesunicreativearts #teesside

Back in 2011, I noticed that museum educators and guides were struggling to lead inquiry-based experiences that effectively engaged their groups. At the same time, teachers were telling me that they wanted museum programmes to inspire close observation, group discussion, and collaboration - with less “telling.” This 'engagement deficit' led to the creation of the Thinking Museum® Approach. Its core focus is engagement—how we see, explore, and interact with art and objects, and with each other. This approach gives educators, guides, and docents the tools to design and lead inquiry-based, engaging experiences in museums confidently. In preparation for the launch of my book, Cigdem Guven created a new look for the Thinking Museum® Approach that reflects its core values: meaningful connections, collaborative learning, and shared discovery. What do you think? I love it! PS Stay tuned for the release of 'The Art Engager: Reimagining Guided Experiences in Museums'. This book will provide practical techniques and tips to bring museum experiences to life. I'll put links in the comments to find out more.

Providing access to museum collections—and all the work required in order to facilitate access—can be a time-intensive and expensive endeavor. Present-day museum Collections Management Systems (CMS) have evolved to the point where many elements of our job as collection stewards are easier. However, we still need to gather and create the data to go with each item when it’s cataloged in the CMS. This takes time and expertise, two resource items that are stretched thin at many institutions. Therefore, it’s no surprise we’re seeing an increase in the number of grants that will now cover museum CMS work with access as the goal. Are you or your institution looking for more information on where to begin? Read more via Lucidea here: https://lnkd.in/gkAtVQ72

Did you know that most people visit museums in groups? Recent research shows that only 5–20% of visitors go alone.* Given the social nature of museum visits, it makes sense to design experiences that foster collective learning and shared discovery.  But how can we ensure these experiences are meaningful and participant-centred? Creating impactful museum experiences goes beyond selecting artworks or objects. It’s about understanding how people engage with museum spaces, collections, and, most importantly, each other. In my book, I outline three key phases - Entry, Exploration and Exit - that help educators design and structure more intentional and participant-centred experiences. Designing in phases enables us to: ‣ Plan deliberately for different types of engagement at each phase ‣ Create distinct moments, each with its own purpose and dynamic ‣ Give participants time to build confidence in looking and discussing ‣ Structure experiences that avoid rushing straight into content delivery Want to learn more? Explore how you can create meaningful, participant-centred experiences in 'The Art Engager: Reimagining Guided Experiences in Museums' (link in the comments). *Igdalova, A., Nawaz, S., & Chamberlain, R. (2024). "A View Worth Talking About: The Influence of Social Interaction on Aesthetic Experience and Well-Being Outcomes in the Gallery."

How Long Should a Museum Experience Take? An hour? Two hours? A whole day? I was recently reviewing the plans for a new history museum, and while the experience looks incredibly compelling, it also seems to go on forever. Room after room, with films, media, and interactive exhibits—it could easily take 3–4 hours. The content is rich, and the chapters all feel necessary, but in form and duration, it feels more like a Ken Burns series than a tight, binge-worthy Netflix doc. It got me thinking: Are there best practices for the length of a museum experience? I’ve been in museum experience design for over 20 years, and while I have a gut instinct, I’m not sure there’s a universal rule. We know Of Mice and Men is a short novel, while War and Peace is a marathon. We all recognize that a 3-hour movie feels indulgent unless it’s exceptional (The Godfather, anyone?). So what about museums? How long is too long? How much can audiences absorb before even the most compelling exhibit becomes exhausting? And please—don’t just tell me “it depends.” Would love to hear your thoughts. Are there hidden best practices out there, or are we all just winging it?

The biggest challenge I see to being able to get exhibit length down to as much of a science as Hollywood has for movies is how much more variation there is to exhibit length based on visitor agency - I can't go into a movie with the mindset that I'll watch it at whatever pace gets me to the end in an hour. Though if we can establish say three levels of visitor engagement--high, medium, low--and standards for measuring completion time for each, I think we could be onto something. High might be something like average total time for a visitor to read every label and do every interactive once completely. Medium might be something like average total time for a visitor to read the title and heading 1 text for all the labels. It doesn't matter exactly what these criteria are so much as that they need to be objectively measurable and standardized for all who use them. It would be a lot more informative, and not too much more difficult, to extrapolate findings like 'blockbuster science exhibits are typically 90-60-40' (90 minutes for high engagement visitors, 60 for medium, 40 for low), than it would be to try to average estimated completion time down to a single number. What do people think?

🔊 Call for Pitches to MMF: Publications Are you a museum worker, activist, scholar, or leader with a unique perspective on art museum workplaces? Submit your pitch for MMF: Publications! We’re now accepting pitches for articles that explore and expand our understanding of museum work through two primary lenses: 1. Voices on the Ground: Personal stories and insights from current and former museum workers. These narratives should illuminate opportunities for individual and collective change-making in the workplace. 2. Solutions-Oriented Analysis: Research and analysis that broaden and deepen our understanding of opportunities for change-making in art museums. These articles should connect with one of MMF’s research areas, including our biannual data study. If your piece does not fit into either of the above categories, you are still welcome to submit. We will work with authors who demonstrate a clear and urgent perspective on the field, regardless of format. Join us in shaping the future of museum work through writing and collaboration. We look forward to your contributions. 🔗Read more and submit a pitch here: https://lnkd.in/gnbVpmgN Deadline to submit: November 4, 2024

If a museum closes at 5pm it shouldn't need to come with a warning at lunchtime that visitors may not have time to enjoy the experience. We design our school programs to a maximum of 2 hours, and that is a push! 90 minutes is better... We find that this is a length that students/participants are engaged and interested even if they are tired or having a bad day. I think the same timeframe can be applied to general visitors. University lectures are similar, tv shows and movies, concerts, etc. In theatre shows if it runs longer than 90 minutes, you will often get an interval break. We are culturally trained to engage for this length of time and if anything, short form content is reducing this further. It also fits nicely between meals and allows for a second experience/activity in that day if they wish. So, my vote is 90 minutes! But of course, it depends... an example of an exception to this would be if your site is isolated and visitors need to travel a considerable distance to visit just your institution - in which case it should be crafted as a full day activity. Other cultures may have different norms around learning and processing time that would impact this. Thoughts? Any other exceptions that jump out?